This week the US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel<\/strong> issued a replacement for its 2011 opinion which said the Wire Act<\/strong> only applies to sports betting<\/strong>. Its new opinion is that the act is applicable to any form of gambling that crosses state lines.<\/p>\n Of course, the Wire Act was written in the 1960s, before there even was an Internet.<\/p>\n However, this new opinion could mean otherwise legal US online gambling<\/strong> runs afoul of the law. Or at least legalized intrastate online gambling<\/strong> that uses technology to route data out of state does. Or, interstate online gambling<\/strong>, like the handful of poker sites that share player pools in now three states, might too.<\/p>\n The American Gaming Association, for its part, seems to think little will be affected:<\/p>\n \u201cIt is unfortunate that the Department of Justice departed from well-established practice in reversing its previous opinion without a compelling reason to do so. However, the 2018 OLC opinion does not impact the ability for states and Tribes to legalize and regulate gaming on a state-by-state and tribal basis, or for companies to provide the exciting products and entertainment experiences our customers want.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On the surface, it\u2019s an opinion that sounds like it should put states that have legalized online gambling on notice. It sounds like it says the battle for a state\u2019s right to make its own decision on online gambling is now on. But is it?<\/p>\n Are lawyers for New Jersey, Nevada, Delaware\u00a0and Pennsylvania\u00a0suddenly calling to say they\u2019ll be working late for the foreseeable future?<\/p>\n Nevada Congresswoman Dina Titus<\/strong> believes the fight is coming. Rep. Titus issued a statement denouncing the reversal<\/strong> almost immediately after hearing the news. It reads:<\/p>\n \u201cThough the full impact of this reckless DOJ reversal remains to be seen, we can be certain that it will inject uncertainty into a well-regulated market and push consumers back into the black market. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration only supports states\u2019 rights when it is politically convenient. Despite this setback, I will continue to lead the fight in Congress to ensure states like Nevada can decide what is best for them on the question of online gaming.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Good for her. It sounds like Rep. Titus and others are ready to start fighting the good fight from inside Congress<\/strong>. However, the real battleground for this kind of fight is inevitably the courts. For those paying attention, the states have already landed the first couple of blows there.<\/p>\n In fact, there are already decisions from the Fifth Circuit<\/strong> and the First Circuit Courts of Appeals<\/strong> holding that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting.<\/p>\n The feds may decide to give the opinion the enforcement teeth it needs to be worth more than the paper its written on. But if it does, it\u2019ll start the court battle down 0-2.<\/p>\n Of course, it remains to be seen whether this is just an opinion or an opinion the DOJ wants to enforce<\/strong>. Plus, it\u2019s unclear whether the federal government wants to spend the kind of money, time, and resources that major pro sports leagues did fighting a similar battle against a state\u2019s right to legalize sports betting.<\/p>\n New Jersey already proved the Supreme Court of the United States<\/strong> will ultimately back a state\u2019s constitutional right<\/strong> to make its own decisions on gambling. Do the feds really want to run down the same road? And do they really want to do it armed with almost 60-year-old legislation they clearly have to stretch super thin to make relevant today?<\/p>\n The Trump Administration<\/strong> has proven it loves a good fight. However, will it really want to take on one that is so obviously a loser?<\/p>\n The DOJ might want to be a real Wire Act stickler<\/strong> here. If so, it can probably take its new interpretation of the law and force states to change some things. For example, the DOJ could force operators to improve the tech so data isn\u2019t routed out of state<\/strong>. The DOJ might even be able to force those states involved in interstate online poker to cool it for now<\/strong>.<\/p>\n $35 No Deposit Bonus<\/p>\n<\/div>\n T&Cs Apply<\/li>\nIt\u00a0is\u00a0not the\u00a0sound\u00a0of victory, it\u00a0is\u00a0not the\u00a0sound\u00a0of defeat<\/span><\/h2>\n
Fighting the losing Wire Act battle won\u2019t win the feds the war<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.pokerscout.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/SB_logo_2c_v2-3.png\"){kind=logo}
Visit DraftKings Sportsbook<\/li>\n\n